社科法學如何處理規範性問題？兼與雷磊教授商榷

在法學研究中，人們無法從“是”推出“應當”這一“休謨問題”在法學研究中的具體體現，便是經驗研究能否以及如何處理法的規範性問題。無論從封閉體系還是開放體系的角度回答這一問題，法教義學都面臨諸多困境，其根源在於證立邏輯以及形式化和非語境的局限。社科法學從因果解釋角度回答這一問題且直面“休謨問題”：價值是客觀的主體性事實；可以借助問題和對問題的成功解決跨越從“是”到“應當”的鴻溝。在這一過程中，“價值判斷”至關重要。社科法學的回答，是基於方法論上“猜測－反駁”的演繹假設的檢驗邏輯。在這一啟示下，法教義學和社科法學的合作有了新視角：社科法學的相對優勢在於能較好應對不確定性情形下的各種問題從而形成規範；法教義學的相對優勢則體現於在相對確定的語境下協調各種規範使之體系化以便應對各種具體案件。

In legal research, the’Problem of Induction’raised by Davide Hume, which means it is impossible to deduce’ought to be’from ‘is’, is embodied in the the question whether and how empirical research can deal with the normativity of law. From either the closed system or open system perspective, legal dogmatics is facing several dilemmas, rooted in the logic of proving and the limitations of formalization and non- contextualism behind it. Law and social sciences answers this question from the perspective of causal explanation and responds to the Problem of Induction. In the process of problem-solving,’value judgment’is crucial, which is widely misunderstood in academic community. The capacity of law and social sciences is based on the verification logic of deductive hypothesis of the’ hypothesis and refutation’ methodology. Enlightenment of law and social sciences methodology enables new perspective of cooperation between legal dogmatics and social sciences. Law and social sciences has the comparative advantage of handling various problems under uncertain circumstances and forming normative rules; legal dogmatics has the comparative advantage of coordinating normative rules and systematizing them, and thus to resolve specific cases under contexts with certainty.